Genes encode instructions that can influence the behaviour and physical traits of the individual that carries them. Individuals of the same species can carry different versions (or variants) of the same gene, leading to a variety of traits in the population. However, a gene expressed in one individual can also alter the traits of another individual. This is known as an indirect genetic effect. For example, a gene in a mother that affects her ability to provide care may influence how her offspring develop.

Researchers have predicted that offspring should be able to manipulate their mothers to try and gain more care than the mothers are willing to give. Furthermore, the offspring born to mothers who respond to this begging are predicted to save energy and beg less. However, few gene variants that indirectly modify the behaviour of mothers or offspring have so far been identified.

Ashbrook et al. used mice to test the idea that genetic variation in particular locations in the offspring’s genome can affect maternal behaviour, and vice versa. In the first experiment, mother mice with different gene variants fostered litters of mouse pups that were all genetically identical. In the other experiment, genetically identical mothers fostered litters of mouse pups with different gene variants. Ashbrook et al. identified several locations in the offspring’s genome that modified the behaviour of their foster mothers. Furthermore, the experiments also show that genetic variation among the mothers influenced the development of their offspring, independent of the genes carried by the offspring.

The next steps are to identify the specific genes underlying the changes in behaviour, and the molecular and genetic pathways by which they impact indirectly on the traits of other individuals.

The close interaction between mother and offspring in mammals is fundamental to offspring development and fitness. However, parent and offspring are in conflict over how much parents should invest in their young where offspring typically demand more than is optimal for the parent (Trivers, 1974; Godfray, 1995), and the existence of this genetic conflict has been demonstrated in empirical research (Kölliker et al., 2015). The resulting selection pressures are predicted to lead to the evolution of traits in offspring that influence parental behaviour (and thus investment). Conversely, parental traits should be selected for their effects on offspring traits that influence parental behaviour indirectly (Kilner and Hinde, 2012). The correlation between parental and offspring traits has been the focus of coadaptation models where specific combinations of demand and provisioning are selectively favoured (Wolf and Brodie III, 1998; Kölliker et al., 2005). The fundamental assumption underlying predictions about the evolution of traits involved in parent-offspring interactions is that genetic variation in offspring exists for traits that indirectly influence maternal investment and vice versa. However, it remains to be shown whether specific genetic variants in offspring indirectly influence maternal behaviour. In an experimental mouse population, we demonstrate that genes expressed in offspring modify the quality of maternal behaviour and thus affect, indirectly, offspring fitness.

To investigate the genetics of parent-offspring interactions we conducted a cross-fostering experiment between genetically variable and genetically uniform mice, using the largest genetic reference panel in mammals, the BXD mouse population. We generated families of genetically variable mothers and genetically uniform offspring by cross-fostering C57BL/6J (B6) litters, in which no genetic variation occurs between animals of this strain, to mothers of a given BXD strain. Conversely, a BXD female’s litter was cross-fostered to B6 mothers (Figure 1). Thus, we can analyse the effects of genetic variation in mothers or offspring while controlling for genetic variation in the other. This cross-fostering design has been successfully utilized in previous studies on family interactions because it breaks the correlation between maternal and offspring traits. Here, different families, or naturally occurring variation of maternal and offspring trait combinations across different broods, are assumed to represent distinct evolved strategies (Agrawal et al., 2001; Hager and Johnstone, 2003; Meunier and Kölliker, 2012). From birth until weaning at 3 weeks of age we recorded offspring and maternal body weights and behaviour, following Hager and Johnstone (2003).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

We first investigated whether there is evidence for indirect genetic effects in offspring influencing maternal behaviour, keeping maternal genotype constant. To find out if maternal behaviour is modified by genes expressed in offspring, we mapped variation in maternal behaviour as a function of their adoptive BXD offspring genotype. We found that variation in offspring genotype affects maternal behaviour, which in turn influences offspring development and fitness. Throughout, we denote loci as either maternal or offspring, Mat or Osp, followed by whether it is an indirect effect (Ige) or a direct effect locus (Dge). We provide a summary of all loci in Table 1, and mapping details in Supplementary files 1A-D. During the first postnatal week we mapped a locus on offspring chromosome 7, OspIge7.1, modifying maternal nestbuidling on day 6 (Figure 2). At this locus, the D2 allele increases the trait value such that B6 mothers showed more nestbuilding activity when fostering BXD pups carrying the D2 allele at the locus. Nestbuilding is particularly important for offspring fitness as thermoregulation is underdeveloped and hypothermia is the primary cause of early death, even if milk is supplied (Lynch and Possidente, 1978). We detected a further locus on offspring distal chromosome 5 (OspIge5.1) that affects maternal behaviour on day 14, around the time we expect the weaning conflict to be highest (Figure 3). Here, mothers showed increased levels of maternal behaviour when fostering BXD offspring carrying the D2 allele. Conversely, we can look at how variation in maternal genotype influences offspring traits, keeping offspring genotype constant, mapping variation in offspring traits as a function of BXD genotype. Here, we found that offspring growth during the second week is affected by a locus on maternal chromosome 17, MatIge17.1, where the B6 allele increases the trait value (Figure 4). In addition to looking at indirect genetic effects we can analyse direct genetic effects, i.e. how an individual’s genotype influences its own traits. In mothers we found a direct genetic effect locus for maternal behaviour on proximal chromosome 10, and for nestbuilding behaviour on chromosome 1 (MatDge10.1 and MatDge1.1, respectively), where the B6 allele increases the trait value in both cases. We also detected a locus for offspring solicitation behaviour on chromosome 5 (OspDge5.1) with the D2 allele increasing the level of solicitation shown. Its location is at the opposite end on chromosome 5 from where OspIge5.1 is located.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2—source data 1

Source data for Figure 2 as uploaded to GeneNetwork, showing the B6 maternal nestbuilding behaviour on day 6 per pup for the BXD lines.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11814.005

Download elife-11814-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Figure 3—source data 1

Source data for Figure 3 as uploaded to GeneNetwork, showing the B6 maternal behaviour on day 14 per pup for the BXD lines.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11814.007

Download elife-11814-fig3-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Figure 4—source data 1

Source data for Figure 4 as uploaded to GeneNetwork, showing the B6 offspring growth in the second postnatal week per pup for the BXD lines.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11814.009

Download elife-11814-fig4-data1-v2.xlsx

Overall, our results show that IGEs, as well as DGEs, can be linked to specific loci that affect parent-offspring interaction, and it is thus possible that selection may occur on genes with indirect and direct effects on parental behaviour. Importantly, our result that variation in maternal behaviour is affected by genes expressed in offspring is also clearly borne out at the phenotypic level: offspring solicitation behaviour in genetically variable BXD pups is positively correlated with the level of maternal behaviour in their genetically uniform B6 adoptive mothers on all three days we measured behaviour with significant effects of maternal behaviour and day on offspring solicitation (GLM, F_1,103 = 17.62, P < 0.001 and F_2,103 = 14.22, P < 0.001, respectively; day 6: Pearsons’r = 0.56, P = 0.003; day 10: r = 0.63, P = 0.001, and day 14: r = 0.55, P = 0.008; Supplementary file 2, a). Similarly, we can investigate how traits in genetically uniform B6 offspring correlate with maternal traits in their genetically variable BXD mothers (i.e. within adoptive families). We found that maternal behaviour and day have a significant positive effect on offspring solicitation behaviour (GLM, F_1,118 = 6.33, P = 0.013, and F_2,118 = 6.33, P < 0.001; Supplementary file 2, b). While one might generally assume that mothers behave in response to offspring solicitation behaviour, these results show, perhaps surprisingly, that variation in maternal behaviour influences the level of solicitation: here, we need to remember that there is no variation in offspring genotype so we assume that across families differences in offspring behaviour are due to differences in the genotype of their adoptive mothers.

Coadaptation of parental and offspring traits

While in the previous section we have focused on analysing traits within foster families, we now turn to the correlation between traits of biological families, i.e. mothers and their biological offspring. This correlation has been analysed in coadaptation models, which make specific predictions about how parental and offspring traits are correlated, and in empirical work (Kölliker et al., 2000; Agrawal et al., 2001; Curley et al., 2004; Lock et al., 2004; Kölliker et al., 2005; Hinde et al., 2010; Meunier and Kölliker, 2012). Prior experimental studies have found both a positive (Parus major; Kölliker et al., 2000: Nicrophorus vespilloides; Lock et al., 2004) and negative correlation between offspring solicitation and parental traits (Sehirus cinctus; Agrawal et al., 2001). In our study, we found a negative correlation. When we measured short-term provisioning, we found a negative correlation between BXD offspring short-term weight gain and the corresponding provisioning of their biological (BXD) mothers on day 10, as well as a negative correlation between BXD offspring solicitation and the corresponding provisioning of their biological (BXD) mothers on day 14 (GLM, F_1,32 = 4.77, P = 0.036; r = -0.34 and GLM, F_1,28 = 8.046, P = 0.008, r = -0.48; Figure 5 and Supplementary file 2, d). Thus, our results suggest that mothers who are generous providers produce young that solicit less maternal resources than offspring born to less generous mothers. Such a negative correlation is predicted to occur when maternal traits are predominantly under selection as long as parents respond to offspring demand (which we have shown above; Kölliker et al., 2005). One scenario to explain this negative correlation might be that each BXD line, i.e. genotype, is characterized by a unique (to this line, everything else being equal) combination of offspring and maternal behaviours where higher maternal provisioning is correlated with lower offspring solicitation. This may be due to the cost of increased solicitation (reflected in reduced bodyweight for the effort expended) for which we found evidence in our study. Bodyweight is indeed negatively correlated with the level of offspring solicitation (GLM, F_1,66 = 20.57, P < 0.001 e.g. day 10, r = -0.39, and day 14, r = -0.44; Figure 6 and Supplementary file 2, e).

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Figure 5—source data 1

Source data for Figure 5 as uploaded to GeneNetwork, showing BXD offspring short-term weight change on day 10 per pup, BXD maternal provisioning on day 10, BXD offspring solicitation on day 14 per pup and BXD maternal provisioning on day 14 for the BXD lines.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11814.012

Download elife-11814-fig5-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

Figure 6—source data 1

Source data for Figure 5 as uploaded to GeneNetwork, showing BXD offspring solicitation on day 10 per pup, BXD offspring weight on day 10 per pup, BXD offspring solicitation on day 14 per pup and BXD offspring weight on day 14 per pup for the BXD lines.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11814.014

Download elife-11814-fig6-data1-v2.xlsx

Our study of the genetics underlying family interactions has revealed that genes expressed in offspring can indirectly influence the quality of maternal behaviour and thus offspring fitness. At the same time, we detected specific loci in maternal genotype that indirectly modify offspring traits, which shows that IGEs can be an important component of the genetic architecture of complex traits (Bijma and Wade, 2008). We note that while postnatal cross-fostering controls for postnatal maternal effects, prenatal maternal effects can only be addressed (to some degree) by embryo transfer (e.g. Cowley et al., 1989), a procedure that is impractical in genetics experiments. Potentially, this may strengthen or weaken, for example, effects of BXD genotype on B6 maternal phenotype. At the same time, pre-natal maternal effects may also contribute to a phenotypic correlation between parent and biological offspring traits, as reported above on coadaptation. In-utero effect variation due to differences in BXD genotype may therefore contribute to differences in BXD offspring behaviour, in turn affecting the behaviour of their adoptive mothers. We now need to investigate the candidates identified here and how their effects on parental and offspring traits are integrated into the gene networks determining individual development. By controlling for genetic variation in either mothers or offspring we have been able to show that levels of maternal provisioning and offspring solicitation are unique to specific genotypes (here each BXD line) and that solicitation is costly. The ability to conduct complex systems genetics analyses in experimental systems of parent offspring interactions will enable us to concentrate now on understanding the underlying pathways involved, and how they are modified by social environmental conditions that determine adult phenotypes and associated reproductive success.

1. 1. Agrawal AF
   2. Brodie III ED
   3. Brown J

   (2001) Parent-offspring coadaptation and the dual genetic control of maternal care

   Science 292:1710–1712.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059910

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Alberts R
   2. Schughart K

   (2010) QTLminer: identifying genes regulating quantitative traits

   BMC Bioinformatics 11:516.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-516

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Andreux PA
   2. Williams EG
   3. Koutnikova H
   4. Houtkooper RH
   5. Champy MF
   6. Henry H
   7. Schoonjans K
   8. Williams RW
   9. Auwerx J

   (2012) Systems genetics of metabolism: the use of the BXD murine reference panel for multiscalar integration of traits

   Cell 150:1287–1299.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.012

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Ashbrook DG
   2. Williams RW
   3. Lu L
   4. Stein JL
   5. Hibar DP
   6. Nichols TE
   7. Medland SE
   8. Thompson PM
   9. Hager R

   (2014) Joint genetic analysis of hippocampal size in mouse and human identifies a novel gene linked to neurodegenerative disease

   BMC Genomics 15:850.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-850

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Belknap JK

   (1998)

   Effect of within-strain sample size on QTL detection and mapping using recombinant inbred mouse strains

   Behavior Genetics 28:29–38.

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bester-Meredith JK
   2. Marler CA

   (2012) Naturally occurring variation in vasopressin immunoreactivity is associated with maternal behavior in female peromyscus mice

   Brain, Behavior and Evolution 80:244–253.

   https://doi.org/10.1159/000341899

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bijma P
   2. Wade MJ

   (2008) The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on response to genetic selection

   Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1175–1188.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01550.x

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chesler EJ
   2. Lu L
   3. Shou S
   4. Qu Y
   5. Gu J
   6. Wang J
   7. Hsu HC
   8. Mountz JD
   9. Baldwin NE
   10. Langston MA
   11. Threadgill DW
   12. Manly KF
   13. Williams RW

   (2005) Complex trait analysis of gene expression uncovers polygenic and pleiotropic networks that modulate nervous system function

   Nature Genetics 37:233–242.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1518

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Cowley DE
   2. Pomp D
   3. Atchley WR
   4. Eisen EJ
   5. Hawkins-Brown D

   (1989)

   The impact of maternal uterine genotype on postnatal growth and adult body size in mice

   Genetics 122:193–203.

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Curley JP
    2. Barton S
    3. Surani A
    4. Keverne EB

    (2004) Coadaptation in mother and infant regulated by a paternally expressed imprinted gene

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:1303–1309.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2725

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Dupuis J
    2. Siegmund D

    (1999)

    Statistical methods for mapping quantitative trait loci from a dense set of markers

    Genetics 151:373–386.

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Eppig JT
    2. Blake JA
    3. Bult CJ
    4. Kadin JA
    5. Richardson JE
    6. The Mouse Genome Database Group

    (2015) The mouse genome database (mGD): facilitating mouse as a model for human biology and disease

    Nucleic Acids Research 43:D726–D736.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku967

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Gammie SC
    2. Bethea ED
    3. Stevenson SA

    (2007) Altered maternal profiles in corticotropin-releasing factor receptor 1 deficient mice

    BMC Neuroscience 8:17.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-8-17

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Godfray HCJ

    (1995) Evolutionary theory of parent-offspring conflict

    Nature 376:133–138.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/376133a0

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Hager R
    2. Johnstone RA

    (2003) The genetic basis of family conflict resolution in mice

    Nature 421:533–535.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01239

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Hager R
    2. Johnstone RA

    (2005) Differential growth of own and alien pups in mixed litters of mice: a role for genomic imprinting?

    Ethology 111:705–714.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2005.01097.x

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Hager R
    2. Johnstone RA

    (2007) Maternal and offspring effects influence provisioning to mixed litters of own and alien young in mice

    Animal Behaviour 74:1039–1045.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.01.021

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Hager R
    2. Lu L
    3. Rosen GD
    4. Williams RW

    (2012) Genetic architecture supports mosaic brain evolution and independent brain–body size regulation

    Nature Communications 3:1079.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2086

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Haley CS
    2. Knott SA

    (1992) A simple regression method for mapping quantitative trait loci in line crosses using flanking markers

    Heredity 69:315–324.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1992.131

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Hayes KS
    2. Hager R
    3. Grencis RK

    (2014) Sex-dependent genetic effects on immune responses to a parasitic nematode

    BMC Genomics 15:193.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-193

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hinde CA
    2. Johnstone RA
    3. Kilner RM

    (2010) Parent-offspring conflict and coadaptation

    Science 327:1373–1376.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1186056

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Keisala T
    2. Minasyan A
    3. Järvelin U
    4. Wang J
    5. Hämäläinen T
    6. Kalueff AV
    7. Tuohimaa P

    (2007) Aberrant nest building and prolactin secretion in vitamin d receptor mutant mice

    The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 104:269–273.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2007.03.031

    • Google Scholar
23. Book

    1. Kilner RM
    2. Hinde CA

    (2012) Parent–offspring conflict

    In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kölliker M, editors. The Evolution of Parental Care. Oxford, UK:: Oxford University Press;. 118––132.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692576.003.0007

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Kolliker M
    2. Brinkhof MWG
    3. Heeb P
    4. Fitze PS
    5. Richner H

    (2000) The quantitative genetic basis of offspring solicitation and parental response in a passerine bird with biparental care

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 267:2127–2132.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1259

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Kölliker M
    2. Brodie III ED
    3. Moore AJ

    (2005) The coadaptation of parental supply and offspring demand

    The American Naturalist 166:506–516.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/491687

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Kölliker M
    2. Boos S
    3. Wong JW
    4. Röllin L
    5. Stucki D
    6. Raveh S
    7. Wu M
    8. Meunier J

    (2015) Parent-offspring conflict and the genetic trade-offs shaping parental investment

    Nature Communications 6:.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7850

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Lock JE
    2. Smiseth PT
    3. Moore AJ

    (2004) Selection, inheritance, and the evolution of parent‐offspring interactions

    The American Naturalist 164:13–24.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/421444

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Lynch CB
    2. Possidente BP

    (1978) Relationships of maternal nesting to thermoregulatory nesting in house mice (mus musculus) at warm and cold temperatures

    Animal Behaviour 26:1136–1143.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(78)90103-3

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Malkesman O
    2. Lavi-Avnon Y
    3. Maayan R
    4. Weizman A

    (2008) A cross-fostering study in a genetic animal model of depression: maternal behavior and depression-like symptoms

    Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 91:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2008.06.004

    • Google Scholar
30. Book

    1. Martin P
    2. Bateson P

    (2007) Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide (3rd ed.)

    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810893

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Meunier J
    2. Kölliker M

    (2012) Parental antagonism and parent-offspring co-adaptation interact to shape family life

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:3981–3988.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1416

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Ohshima T
    2. Ward JM
    3. Huh CG
    4. Longenecker G
    5. Veeranna
    6. Pant HC
    7. Brady RO
    8. Martin LJ
    9. Kulkarni AB

    (1996) Targeted disruption of the cyclin-dependent kinase 5 gene results in abnormal corticogenesis, neuronal pathology and perinatal death

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93:11173–11178.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.20.11173

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Schneider T
    2. Skitt Z
    3. Liu Y
    4. Deacon RMJ
    5. Flint J
    6. Karmiloff-Smith A
    7. Rawlins JNP
    8. Tassabehji M

    (2012) Anxious, hypoactive phenotype combined with motor deficits in Gtf2ird1 null mouse model relevant to williams syndrome

    Behavioural Brain Research 233:458–473.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.05.014

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Sen S
    2. Satagopan JM
    3. Broman KW
    4. Churchill GA

    (2007) R/qtlDesign: inbred line cross experimental design

    Mammalian Genome 18:87–93.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-006-0090-y

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Shifman S
    2. Bell JT
    3. Copley RR
    4. Taylor MS
    5. Williams RW
    6. Mott R
    7. Flint J
    8. Gibbs R
    9. Flint J

    (2006) A high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism genetic map of the mouse genome

    PLoS Biology 4:e395.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040395

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Smith JW
    2. Seckl JR
    3. Evans AT
    4. Costall B
    5. Smythe JW

    (2004) Gestational stress induces post-partum depression-like behaviour and alters maternal care in rats

    Psychoneuroendocrinology 29:227–244.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4530(03)00025-8

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Trivers RL

    (1974) Parent-offspring conflict

    American Zoologist 14:249–264.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/14.1.249

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Wolf JB
    2. Brodie III ED

    (1998) The coadaptation of parental and offspring characters

    Evolution 52:299–308.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2411068

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. David George Ashbrook

   Computational and Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   DGA, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   david.ashbrook@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7397-8910

2. Beatrice Gini

   Computational and Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   BG, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. Reinmar Hager

   Computational and Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   RH, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   Reinmar.Hager@manchester.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

• 2,336

  views

• 340

  downloads

• 31

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.